So, you're relaxing on the balcony of a house out in the country and the weather is kinda good so you decide to take your top off to sunbathe in the belief that your privacy is guaranteed by the law. Some low-life chancer gets lucky (in his eyes) and gets a photo of you which he then sells to a magazine, who subsequently publish it. At which point is this NOT an invasion of privacy? What does it matter who the subject is? Do famous people not have the same rights as everyone else? When on private property and away from the (normal) gaze of others outside of the property is it not right to expect that your privacy will be respected?
I despair at the "who cares" attitude expressed by some in this and the recent Harry thread. We should all care because this erosion of morals and respect effects us all as the trickle down will mean that eventually everyone will be fair game. If it was my wife in those pictures I'd hunt down the photographer responsible and gouge his eyes out so he couldn't do it anyone else ever again.
The Royal family have always been reluctant to instigate legal procedings in the past but I do hope they make an exception in this case just to make the point to others that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Unfortunately I suspect they won't and even if they did the fine that can be imposed on the magazine is paltry compared to the potential increase in sales this will bring them.
Society is going to hell in a hand basket