of employee privacy. Thompson, 930 F.Supp. 501 (D.Kan.1996). The court reasoned that work-related video surveillance of the shared locker room area was a valid means to document employee misconduct and did not violate any privacy interest. Id. at 508. Acosta, like the defendant in Thompson, allegedly videotaped an office area to record workplace misconduct. Counter-plaintiffs reliance on Wolfson v. Lewis, 924 F.Supp. 1413, 1420 (E.D.Pa.1996), is equally inapposite. The Wolfson court recognized an exception to the general rule that facts displayed publically cannot be considered private. The court found that there can be an invasion of privacy where a defendant’s conduct amounts to a persistent course of hounding, harassment and unreasonable surveillance. Wolfson, 924 F.Supp. at 1420 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, counter-plaintiff here has not
holding that an asylum applicant cannot claim past persecution based solely on the harm that was inflicted on a family member on account of that family members political opinion or other protected characteristic holding that no wellfounded fear was established where the attacks on family members failed to show a pattern of persecution tied to the petitioners holding surveillance unreasonable where a news program repeatedly stalked members of plaintiffs family with cameras recognizing that the harm suffered by family members in combination with other factors  would presumably only be persecution where  the applicant not only shares or is perceived to share the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family members but was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident holding that wellfounded fear was established where all of petitioners similarly situated family members were persecuted