Criminal intent is probably the easiest to prove here. If one defines "intent" as the desire to bring about an action, there has certainly been the intent to t

Criminal intent is probably the easiest to prove here. If one defines "intent" as the desire to bring about an action, there has certainly been the intent to take pictures. After all, they do not collect themselves automatically, someone decided that they should be taken. It's something of a tossup if Lower Meirion is covered by the wiretapping statutes - those tend to cover communication and it's a bit dubious if photographing someone in one's private space is covered by that. Perhaps one could invoke the Fourth Amendment, but then someone would have to argue that private entities are also covered. It's likely that the student and the parents were informed of the spyware and has to sign an agreement to accept it, but then the laptops were required for classwork, one could not attend school without once, so one would have to consider if consent wasn't given under duress. We notice that the family collected handsomely under personality rights. That is firmly covered under civil law, so the law has some teeth. However, when there is some entity, private or public, that makes a business of violating personality rights, at that point such actions impact society as a whole, and it's criminal law that must be invoked to to restrain them.