Your home should be a safe haven, off limits to anyone not invited in. You shouldn't have to live your life with the curtains drawn all the time. There is an expectation of privacy in your own home and it has been violated by the photographer who in my opinion is nothing but a "stalker" trying to make money off a controversy not art.
I agree 100%.
It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state. The law has little to do with morality, and probably makes a pig's ass of it when it tries to get involved in moral matters.
The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right.
It's a part of the amateur snapper psyche, especially the amateur/art one, that everyone is fair game. They are not - if you want to shoot people, go hire models.
That, however, doesn't exclude people from taking the common sense route and drawing their blinds if they are about to do anything compromising. Both parties carry a responsibility. I can tell you this: if I found someone had been spying on my wife, I'd settle the matter out of court, and not with money. I feel a hatred for these types of photographer. They besmirch all of us; just like pornographers, of which this is but a thin, chicken-livered branch.