Sports journalist Matthew Syed of The Times (UK) explains why Woods has forfeited any right to privacy at this point:
To put it simply, Woods’s right to privacy has been fatally undermined not by his earning lots of cash beyond the golf course, but by his hypocrisy. He could have had sex with a platoon of cocktail waitresses while dressed in a pair of suspenders and still been entitled to privacy had he not, at the same time, been pocketing a sizeable cheque from Gillette via a management company that had spent three weeks figuring out how to place a soft-focus picture of Woods, his baby in his arms, and his wife looking on lovingly.
Even Eady, the bête noire of Fleet Street editors because of what they see as his tendency to come down on the side of privacy against free speech, has understood this point, as have most of the rest of the world.
Put simply, it is not credible for anyone to trade lucratively on their public image and to expect the press to leave them be when there is evidence of behaviour (albeit behind closed doors) that directly contradicts that image.