Wow, is this some sort of jedi lawyer mind trick you're trying, where you prove the exact point I am making, then act like it shows you were right all along? If so, you may need to spend some more time channeling the Force because it's not working.

My point was that despite what you or the general public thinks invasion of privacy is, the law may say something very different. I'm pretty positive if I had asked you before the Arne Svenson case whether it was legal to take photos of people through their windows with a telephoto lens and then publicly display them, you would have said a definitive "no". Especially given that you think a much lesser activity, that being a gopro-equipped drone merely being in the airspace above your property, is also an invasion of privacy. Yet the court ruled very clearly that it was legal. Meaning what you and probably most people (including me) thought was an illegal invasion of privacy actually was not.

So...when you point out that the court said, hey our hands are tied here, and it required changes to the law to make such activity illegal, then you are making the same point as me. That what you are so sure is illegal actually may not be! That legislators are scrambling to patch a hole in the law does not mean the hole doesn't exist.