In note 2 after the Hambrick case on page 156, Solove and Schwartz address the argument that statutes can indicate a societal recognition of a particular privacy interest. The court rejects this argument.

• Was it correct to do so?
• Aren't statutes passed by democratically elected representatives indicative of the nation's expectations regarding privacy?
  • Why or why not?
• What would be the consequences of using statutes as evidence of a reasonable expectation of privacy?