Warren and Brandeis "The Right to Privacy"

It seems, that if there is no distinct evidence of harm, as defined by the law, then there is no wrong or rather, no act to criminalize. Professor Koopman gave the example of sleeping in someone's bed without their knowledge or consent. Where does the Patriot Act fit into the regulation of society versus the individual's right to privacy/life/happiness? In the Warren and Brandeis reading where does the right to privacy protect the individual against the Patriot Act while, at the same time, create a loophole for the Patriot Act to exist? (look to number two at the end of the paper) How is the title "right to privacy" justified, if this contradiction meant to create societal controls and protections can be so easily abused? Can one contend that the relationship between society and the individual (i.e. the individual’s responsibilities to society and the responsibility of society to the preservation of the individual’s rights) although, created under the merit of encouraging balance to ensure justice, has been unfairly weighted toward the benefit of society or rather the ruling governing system? Is the law more heavily weighted towards the ends that feed societal controls rather then the individual's right to privacy? Is this wrong? Is this right? To what end?