Right of Privacy Act: US Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary (1967)

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

Exchange with Senator Long about Senate Testimony on Privacy (1967)

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Thanks so much for your good letter of March 16, 1967. Read it and the enclosure with much interest. In my view, it would be very helpful to the Subcommittee and the Congress if you could come and put into our hearing record some of the thoughts contained in the February article. It would give us a more solid basis for our belief that the right to privacy is not only very worthwhile, it is also one of our oldest cherished rights. If you can see your way clear to coming, we can find a convenient date for testimony on April 18, 19, 20, or some day in May. Kind regards. Sincerely, Edward V. Long, Chairman

Jewish Law & Secular Law

Letter to Dr. Konvitz about Article on Privacy and the Law (1967)

Dear Professor Konvitz: Please forgive me my undue delay in reacting to the splendid article, a reprint of which you sent me, on "Privacy and the Law: A Philosophical Prelude." I preferred to do justice to so eminent an author by reading his work, with the requisite diligence and attention, instead of a perfunctory and cursory reading together with a superficial note of thanks. Your ideas are certainly enlightening, and constitute a most valuable contribution to the current literature on the theme of privacy. I quite agree with your association of sexual immorality with the exposure of one’s physical privacy in the Bible, as evidenced by the cases of Adam and Noah. I would add that the general Biblical term for Illicit sex is giluy arayot – which implies exposure, revealing, uncovering, and therefore the reverse of privacy and modesty.I hope you will forgive me for registering one objection to this section of your article. I would not have referred to the story of Adam and Eve as a "mythical" teaching. Even if one does not accept the narrative of Adam and Eve as being literal and historical truth, it is still a considerable jump from mythology to figurative truth in the Bible.Your connection of Justice Douglas’s opinion on "Zones of Privacy" as flowing out of Justice Brennan's notion of "breathing space," calls to mind the great and fundamental Talmudic principle of seyag le’torah; if, therefore, indeed, privacy is a Biblical notion, then Jews must consider it not as a point but as an area or "zone," and therefore Rabbinical legislation must include the "penumbra" in the areas prohibited to intrusion.It might interest you to know that I have been invited by Senator Edward Long to testify before his Senate sub-Committee on the view of Jewish law and theology on the question of privacy.It was a pleasure corresponding with you – I still hope to hear from you and receive any comments you may have on my article – and I look forward to meeting you personally at the May 7…

Jewish Law & Secular Law

Letter to Justice Warren about Senate Testimony on Privacy (1967)

Dear Judge Warren: About ten years ago, in the 1956 issue of Judaism, there was published an article I had written entitled "The Fifth Amendment and its Equivalent in the Halakhah." I was honored to see a reference to this article in your famous Miranda decision of last May. I have the honor, therefore, of sending you enclosed a copy of the testimony I recently delivered before Senator Long's Sub-Committee dealing with the rights of privacy. My testimony, which will be shortly printed in the Proceedings of that Committee, deals with the views of Halakhah (Jewish law) on the Fourth Amendment.I know how terribly busy you are, but I would deeply appreciate receiving any comments you may have to make on this paper.Sincerely yours,Rabbi Norman LammRNL/fzenc.

Jewish Law & Secular Law