We went from opt-in zones to opt-out zones. Living spaces with curtains drawn and the inside of your vehicle should really be opt-in though.
I'd say no.
Yet conversely, it's not illegal(criminal) to use binoculars to peer. Still, you can get an injunction(civil) if it's a common thing, because then it moves into harassment. Restraining orders have been given. So then the question is, why is this a thing for your neighbour peering at your house with binoculars some of the day, but not for a camera doing the same 24x7? EG, a Ring camera pointed at your house, with sufficient resolution to act as binoculars?
I really wish 'viewing someone with a camera' remotely, was looked at more from the frame of 'is it the same as using binoculars'. EG, is there a zoom lens on the camera, or just as important, is it of sufficient high resolution that it can act as a zoom lens in software.
I'd like to see a court case push back against that.
I've found with technology, that everyone from judges to lawyers seem incapable, at the start, of considering it with an analog, uh, analogue. Almost all cameras are as binoculars today.