In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, the court established an analytical framework for evaluating a cause of action for invasion of privacy: "A plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to privacy must establish each of the following: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy." In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 9 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, 865 P.2d 633, our Supreme Court held that the NCAA's (National Collegiate Athletic Association) drug testing program did not violate the state constitutional right to privacy and thus college student athletes could be required to abide by the program. In doing so, the court declared: "Athletic participation is not a government benefit or an economic necessity that society has decreed must be open to all." ( Id. at p. 42.) It further acknowledged that the students and the university "have no legal right to participate in intercollegiate athletic competition." ( Id. at p. 43.) The Supreme Court stated: "The plaintiff in an invasion of privacy case must have conducted himself or herself in a manner consistent with an actual expectation of privacy, i.e., he or she must not have manifested by his or her conduct a voluntary consent to the invasive actions of defendant. If voluntary consent is present, a defendant's conduct will rarely be deemed 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' so as to justify tort liability. " ( Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal. 4th at p. 26.) However, in determining whether offensiveness exists, a court must consider a variety of circumstances of the intrusion. (Ibid.; Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, 187 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 1483-1484; accord, Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., supra, 18 Cal. 4th at p. 236.) The factors include: (1) the degree of intrusion; (2) the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion; (3) the intruder's motives and objectives; (4) the setting into which the intrusion occurs; (5) the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded. ( Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal. 4th at p. 26; Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, 187 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 1483-1484; accord, Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., supra, 18 Cal. 4th at pp. 236-237.)