Strawmen gets you nowhere.
Anyway, how do paparazzis operate in the US?
Also, your source is kinda shitty.
You're deliberately being a bit of a jerk about this, dude, and you know it. Other people are picking up on your "I'm always contrarian" gimmick too.
But fine, if you want to be childish and play it like that...
literally the first google hit for voyeurism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyeurism
Citing:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/
Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. It encompasses workplace monitoring, Internet privacy, data collection, and other means of disseminating private information.
Celebrities are not protected in most situations, since they have voluntarily placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities are considered newsworthy. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a limited constitutional right of privacy based on a number of provisions in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. This includes a right to privacy from government surveillance into an area where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and also in matters relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education. However, records held by third parties such as financial records or telephone calling records are generally not protected unless a specific federal law applies. The court has also recognized a right of anonymity and the right of groups to not have to disclose their members' names to government agencies.
The criminal voyeurism statute of some states cover "a place where [one] would have a reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning:
A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or
A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.
Given the similarity to voyeurism, a jury might find that placing a hidden camera in a certain location may amount to the torts of outrage or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch69_2003_stephanie_vidvoy.htm
A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when:
1. For his or her own, or another person's amusement, entertainment,
or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or
she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or
installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or
record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate
parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reason-
able expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent.
2. For his or her own, or another person's sexual arousal or sexual
gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the
utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously
view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual
or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's
knowledge or consent.
3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or
installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging
device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a
bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, wash-
room, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel
or inn, without such person's knowledge or consent.
(b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or
installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging
device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet,
bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in
a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such
person did so for no legitimate purpose.
4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she inten-
tionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of
an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under
the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate
parts of such person.
--
If the original poster hadn't admitted he does this just for sexual voyeurism ("pretty girls") then he may be able to get away with it. But any reasonable judge (or any human being not completely ignorant) will realize HE'S RECORDING THEIR BOOBS AND BUTTS.