The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building.
The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission.
There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.
>Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment.
I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.
Sure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen.
>Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars."
"Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018"
I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.