I'm not sure what country Eric Taney was raised in, nor his cultural upbringing. Traditionally though, American government and ideals are based on a limited constitutional democratic-representative republic. Constitutions are written as the basis for governments so as they do not overextend their boundaries established in an initial social contract.

The U.S. Constitution has the same basis. The Fourth Amendment, along with the other first ten amendments, seeks to limit government infringement on individual freedoms, such as privacy. An invasion of privacy, if overlooked, and not 'checked' by the judicial branch, can be misused by an unrestricted executive.

Your example of exposing oneself in the HUB does not apply to this social contract, as Penn State, and other students do not serve as governmental entities. The State College Borough does, and the constitutional legality comes into question as students have a heightened expectation from governmental interference in this tightly knit community. Rights are immutable and inalienable for all, and cannot be infringed by any majority.

I do not follow your reasoning where you state that the lack of cameras would create a right to commit crimes. This is an issue of government overstepping its bounds. Is deterrence not possible through other channels?

I find it humorous that I am now accused of wanting to commit crimes freely, because I believe in standing up for everyone's rights. You also vaguely speak of 'public places' -- but who is to define what is public, and what is private?

In closing I would like to quote Justice Brandeis' dissenting opinion in the case of Olmstead vs. the United States, "Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. . . . Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce then in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. . . . Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?"