The director of a residential facility for neglected and abused children learned that pornographic web sites had been viewed from at least two computers in the facility during the night. The facility had a computer systems policy that prohibited the viewing of such sites and stated that the organization could monitor and record employee activity o nits computers, network, and e=mail systems. One of the computers was in an office shared by two female staff members The office had a door that could be locked (although several administrators also had key s to the office) and blinds that could be lowered to cover all of the windows The women sometimes used the office to change their clothes at the end of the day. One of the women did not always log off the computer system before leaving work The women were not suspected of the offense because it occurred at night after they were gone, but the director wanted to catch the offender in the act. To that end –and without any notification to the women – he placed in their office a hidden, motion-sensor activated video camera and pointed it toward one of the employee’s computer. A monitor and VCR were placed n a storage closet and could be used to view and record any images from the camera The storage closet was kept locked, but was accessible to other staff with keys. The women were not told of the camera’s presence on the grounds that the word might get around and scare off the perpetrator. The camera remained in place for three weeks. During that period, the director said that he had activated the system three times and never during the day when the women were in the office The video surveillance turned up nothing One of the women eventually discovered the camera in the office and brought a privacy tort claim against the facility. What should the court decide? Why?