(Links stolen from a /. article
It's always interesting to read a court's decision when one of them has gone and gotten well and truly pissed
. When a judge starts calling his peer's decisions Orwellian and beyond what communist governments are willing to do, you know something is up.
Basically, a CA district court has ruled that an Internet Cafe enjoys some First Amendment protections but has completely ignored the privacy of the people going there. Would you go to a 'net cafe in a city that requires
all 'net cafes to have cameras watching you constantly? The majority opinion justifies this by saying the city does not require
the cameras to record the computer screens. Good grief. And they also state that a camera is identical to a security guard. Pardon? Sure thing.
Read more informed opinions here
. The actual decision is available as a PDF here
. The dissenting opinion is particularly interesting and starts at page 30.