Re: the problem with drones...
drones flying close enough to viably peer in windows are (currently) loud enough to be definitively not-surreptitious, making the Peeping Tom law inapplicable.
However, you can surely see that someone could fly a drone, land it, and not be needing the hover capability (say viewing from the roof of a building across the street into the target property).
Also, with the latest battery/ power technology, where a previous 20 minute flight may have been possible, fuel cell retailers are expecting 2-3 hours, so if the R/C device only needs to receive the radio for a couple of hours (having landed the drone in a position from which to view the target), the drone could sit with minimal power consumption, waiting for a radio signal, at which point the camera will be activated, start streaming, and the roof where it is located might be in complete darkness.
So long as the "Peeping Tom" remembers to turn off the camera before running the battery too low, and taking off, to be able to recover the drone, there may be only the noise of the drone at two times - once to position and land it, and the second, possibly under cover of darkness, to take off and land (not necessarily near the drone owner's home).
Who knows how far it will be flown before collection, and in the first place, from whence it came... (in other words, the PT drives to a park within range of the target property, having spotted a suitable target building + person, and taken note of some landmarks... goes back after dark, watches whatever they can, flies the drone back towards the park (and by means of their own hazard lights and headlights, can get visual clues about which direction to fly once near the park).
NB I am in UK, not sure if any similar 'Peeping Tom' law exists, and don't drive.