If they want to get naked, stay indoors,
or come outside and flaunt it,
but don't be aghast when somebody snaps your picture.
If you are on your own private property and someone has to peek through the hedges, then yes they deserve privacy. Its not like she was on a public beach.
I work for a national private investigative and security company, and a fair portion of our business is surveillance, particularly for insurance defense. While it's generally accepted that what a person does in the public eye is fair game, there's a lot of gray area. Because we are not a government entity, strictly speaking, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to us, and yet, in civil proceedings our work is generally weighed against the same expectation of privacy standards.
For example if a person has their bay window open to the street one could argue that what that person does in their living room is fair game based on it's visibility to the public. Yet there are many civil juries that would consider video of a person in their own living room to be an invasion of privacy, and would consider an insurance company's video evidence of those activities to be obtained in bad faith...particularly if a zoom lens was used to peer into the interior of the residence...even if the person admittedly had their blinds and shades wide open.
A classic example used in training is the privacy fence with a missing board. Even if somebody's activities are visible through the gap in the fence from a public sidewalk, the existence of the fence will generally be adequate to establish that the person had an expectation of privacy therein.
I haven't followed this story very closely, so I don't know if the photog trespassed or committed anyother like violations. Similarly, I agree that public figures should be a bit more guarded when in public, but at the same time, just because they're outdoors on private property doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to expect any privacy.