There is only one other situation.
Some creeps use tiny cameras mounted on their shoe, on a cane, etc.
If a women wears an ankle-length dress that covers to the neck and forearm, and stands waiting for the bus at a crowded bus top, and a man sitting at the bus top next to her puts his camera under her dress and takes a photo, she has done all she can to dress modestly.
The creep who took the picture is guilty of a) lusting after her and b) coveting her, as she is not his wife and he has no right to uncover her nakedness. It’s the same in that case as the creep having no right to tear her clothes off and photograph her; he has violated the women’s modesty.
But as you say, it is common today for women to wear revealing clothing, which is to say they are playing the harlot.
In those cases, both the harlot and the gawker are both committing sinful, wicked acts, which, in a Christian nation, would be against the civil law code, as the civil law code would implement Biblical legal standards.
I understand the tiny camera thing. The people who engage in taking these photos, small cameras or not, are lacking in many areas. Yes, the tiny camera thing is wrong, but may I say, if the government can monitor our phone calls, mail, and web viewing then this isn’t really a stretch and I can see how someone might rationalize it isn’t wrong, when it is wrong.
I googled upskirt and downblousing; the hits are all essentially for porn sites, excepting for stories on its legality. On the lighter porn sites were women largely dressed in clothing inappropriate for the activity in which they were engaged. Most of the photos were of women wearing clothing waaaaay to small or revealing. When you dress trashy, people will think poorly of you. I think the photo is a low priority at that point.