When Justice Douglas wrote for the Supreme Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 1 that various constitutional guarantees create "zones of privacy," he was quite right in pointing out that the Court was dealing "with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights." Indeed, "zones of privacy" can be found marked off, hinted at, or groped for in some of our oldest legal codes and in the most influential philosophical writings and traditions. Almost the first page of the Bible introduces us to the feeling of shame as a violation of privacy. After Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." ' Thus, mythically, we have been taught that our very knowledge of good and evil-our moral nature, our nature as men-is somehow, by divine ordinance, linked with a sense and a realm of privacyY3 When, after the Flood, Noah became drunk, he "lay uncovered in his tent," and Ham violated his father's privacy by looking upon his father's nakedness and by telling his brothers about it. His brothers took a garment, "laid it upon their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness." Now, at least for the moment, let us leave the Garden of Eden and the tent of the second Adam and enter a "wilderness" as projected and defined by an act of Congress of 1964. A wilderness, says the act, is "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain," and which is to be protected and managed so as to preserve its "outstanding opportunities for solitude." 5 This distance from the biblical garden to the statutory wilderness may have taken thousands of years to traverse; but surely that distance and the distance between the "zone of privacy" which two of Noah's three sons respected and "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms," which the Supreme Court sought to protect in Giswold, cannot conceptually be great. Is it even surprising that a Justice of the Supreme Court who spends much of his free time