According to this site, there is a peeping tom law which makes voyeurism illegal. The author didn't report a crime, and actually took part in one. Non-disclosure agreements are pretty flimsy, especially for something like this. Contracts to hide illegal behavior are usually unenforceable, so I don't think that the author would have to deal with that too much. Whether or not people knew it, their privacy was invaded. That's a harm. I agree with you that the author not only enabled Foos' behavior, but also that he didn't examine his own behavior in regards to the immorality. I found myself more critical of the author. At least Foos knew that he was doing something he shouldn't be doing. The author was judging someone else while doing something he shouldn't have been doing.