>For better or worse society’s definition of privacy is definitely changing.

That's a matter of perception. You perceive it to be changing.

I don't know anyone who would willingly be on the receiving end of what this woman suffered. I do not see societies definition of privacy changing. I see a small group of needy people using using loopholes in the law to harm others in order to re-enforce their own ego.

The law is slowly catching up with the digital age. We'll outlaw all this stuff eventually. Unfortunately, most of this is falling to case law and case law is very reactive, so in general someone has to be badly harmed for each loophole to be closed. Still, we'll make it. In the mean time, it's important to enact community punishment on the trespassers.

The woman who did this did it because she is looking for employment. On the off chance that she comes asking to anyone on hacker news: If you care about privacy, do not hire her, and tell her it is because she treats others badly.

Yes, that's a problem. It's a question of scale, nowadays you can broadcast whatever you like to an audience of millions. Not that you should.

The law addresses questions of scale, though. If you call your ex you are a sad case. If you call her 100s of times a day you are a stalker and different rules apply.

Society is not a person, it doesn't have a definition. It's just an abstract excuse used by actual individuals. If you want to propose, as a person, a particular notion of privacy, do so.