Wendy Davis at MediaPost describes a question and answer session between Scalia and Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and director of the Future of Privacy Forum. After arguing that free speech trumps the interests of privacy:

Polonetsky asked Scalia what he thought about a federal law banning video rental stores from disclosing the names of movies customers borrow. That law has particular resonance for Supreme Court judges because it was passed after a newspaper obtained and printed video rental records of nominee Robert Bork. Scalia then softened his position somewhat, to concede that "sensitive" information might warrant privacy protection.

So what is "sensitive" information if not information we want to keep private? Even Scalia is admitting there is some personal information that warrants protection. I assume he would include things like bank account numbers, credit card numbers and health care records. How about business information, should that be protected to some degree?

Dismissing privacy protection as unconstitutional because of free speech protection is over reaching. There are plenty of cases in which free speech is curtailed to protect other interests, ranging from not yelling fire in a crowded theater or making excessive noise in the vicinity of a school when it is in session. Privacy deserves the sometimes intense public policy debate it gets. Trying to cut the process short with overreaching legal principals undermines that debate.

Lets hope the soon to be appointed Supreme Court justice will have a more nuanced stand on complex issues like privacy.