Thanks for the replies chaps.
I thought that on a 'subscription private network' like that there would have been some hurdles to hop over before whomever's privacy was breached. Would I be correct to say that some laws had been broken in the case of the OP ? I should imagine that they were looking at nothing more racy than an embroidery shop's website from their ages and interests
but hypothetically, as I have no clue, nobody should have the ability to look over someone's shoulder literally and figuratively without court orders. Or am I being naiive
SHJ