The real question is...
... was this staged to provoke a media reaction to allow ever more restrictive legislation on photography in public places? Along "think of the children" lines, think of those unfortunate persons who choose to wear non-concealing clothing being photographed. Rather than dress appropriately, their right to wear non-concealing clothing while expecting unwarranted privacy must take precedence over our freedom to take photographs in public.
How do you legislate what camera angle is illegal? Is there an equation based on the relative size of the clothing to the wearer? What if your camera is not concealed so it's obvious you are taking photos? What about overhead camera angles that reveal more of the upper body? What precise areas of the body are deemed "private"? Can an underdressed person cause a photographer to commit an offence, if the same photo would have been OK on someone properly dressed?
Without well-defined rights to photography in public, It's a slippery slope.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
