<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" <<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a>> wrote:</p>
<p dir="ltr">> There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this:</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4">http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a peephole with a cover:</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover">http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">could well be negligence.  </p>