He should just post the same poster over and over, forcing the idiot campus police chief either to cite him for disorderly conduct or to capitulate. If he doesn't call their bluff, what good does all this do?

I hit the platters with the pointy end of a 5 lb. pick axe. It's good exercise and, beyond that, anyone who successfully recovers any data from the warped platters deserves to have it.

Arguably, you could have a legitimate expectation of privacy (and therefore 4th Amendment rights) in your friend's home. If your friend has voluntarily linked his webcam to the police system, your privacy rights could be violated. Regardless, I wanted to follow up on my earlier post that a private individual likely becomes a government agent for 4th Amendment purposes if he voluntarily links his camera to a police surveillance system. "For a private person to be considered an agent of the government, we look to two critical factors: (1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private actor's purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further his own ends." United States v. Simpson, 904 F.2d 607, 610 (11th Cir.1990).

In cases where the government argues that the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply because the search was conducted by a private party, the government loses if it can be demonstrated that the private party was a de facto government agent, or acting at the behest of a government agent. Surely it would be the same with cameras?

Didn't miss that. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2373668&cid=37047914

That's awfully broad.

Still, this particular blogger has plainly misrepresented the content of the Court's decision. It's beyond me where he got the notion that anyone was talking about "hacking." The tweet he links as his source doesn't use that word, and neither does the lawyer's article linked to the tweet. It's plainly not in the judicial decision. I stick with my original assessment: he's just trying to drive traffic to his sight for financial gain.

Agreed with you. The only reason this is a story is because the "journalist" from TFA injected the word "hacking" into it. The apparent motive for this was to rile up a bunch of geeks who get mad when the term "hacking" is used improperly, which would drive traffic to the article. Slashdot's predictable pet peeve has been used to boost someone's revenue. My apologies for inferring the ill intent and profit motive on the part of the journalist. It's either that, or we have to assume he's a dummy who can't read.

I can't find the words hack or hacking in the Court's decision anywhere. Am I missing something?