State Secrets:  New York Times writer Adam Liptak reports that some of President Obama's supporters on the left are concerned about his administration's defense of the state secrets privilege, characterized as a favorite tool of the Bush administration.  In the Supreme Court case of Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Norman Carpenter, where the primary focus is on attorney-client privilege, the Solicitor General has introduced an amicus brief  which includes a final section with the heading:Certain privileges implicate interests of constitutional significance under the separation of powers and qualify under the collateral order doctrine.  The section is a five page defense of the Presidential communications privilege and the state secrets privilege, which the administration acknowledges are grounded in the Constitution.  Liptak's article notes that "On the campaign trail and in more recent statements, President Obama has indicated that he wants to limit the use of the state secrets privilege.  In courtrooms, however, there has been little evidence of a new approach." 

Workplace Surveillance Upheld, Sort of.  A unanimous California Supreme Court has rejected the claim of two employees of a children's residential care center, that a surveillance camera violated their privacy rights.  An LA Times story, by writer Maura Dolan, quotes the plaintiff's attorney who called the decision in Hernandez v. Hillsides "a virtual green light to spy on employees via hidden camera for almost any reason..."  Well not really.  The case involves an effort by the care center management to identify who was using an office computer at night to download pornography.  Search data showed that the computer in an office shared by the plaintiffs had been used for this purpose. After learning this, management hid a surveillance camera in the office and activated it after working hours.  The plaintiffs were never recorded. While the court noted that the plaintiffs had some expectation of privacy, it also pointed out that they had to prove that the violation was unwarranted, highly offensive and a serious breach of social norms.  Considering the circumstances, the court determined that, "[i]n this case, they weigh heavily against a finding that the intrusion upon plaintiffs' privacy interests was highly offensive or sufficiently serious to warrant liability. In context, defendants took a measured approach in choosing the location to videotape the person who was misusing the computer system."