Taking the photos isn't the issue, it's what's being done with them.

One's expectation of privacy is being challenged every day, but it's still a right in my opinion, whether or not any Tom Dick or Harry is allowed to photograph in and around the public places on your street.

My expectation of privacy is such that I can cope and deal with the normal and typical traffic around my neighborhood. My management of my property and how I choose to display in and outside my home are governed on that expectation and established "norm."

I do not expect that my window will be viewable to millions of people per day, whether or not millions of people choose to look on any given day. I do not expect that a photographic survey of my property, and potentially my family, will be viewable, indexed and cross-referenced for millions to use/see either. Google isn't displaying photos, they're creating hyper-detailed navigable maps, complete with address and positional information.

I'm big on photographer's rights and in fact maintain some reference material specific to a number of countries on that subject. I don't feel that Google's business model and platform fall into the same ballpark at all.

While they have the right to create, display and promote such a product, I feel that property owners and municipalities should have the right to refuse admittance. Note, I don't think they should have editorial control, which is different.

Google's product is far from what anyone familiar with photographer's rights would call "photography," regardless of the initial recording medium,