In contrast, if you set up a high fence around your pool in order to sunbathe naked, aerial photography would probably be an invasion of your privacy? If your roof was designed in a similar way, one might be able to argue it was wrong for the company to observe aspects of it without permission. (Although they might have gotten permission via the insurance contract...)
I think this legal standard becomes tricky (or at least ought to receive more scrutiny) when we start talking about pervasiveness and permanence. Just because I know that an arbitrary person might take a picture of me in public doesn't mean I expect every single thing I do outside to be recorded forever by a technological invisible stalker hovering over my shoulder at every outdoor moment.
Otherwise, it would be illegal to fly a plane or even a hot air balloon pretty much anywhere, and even things like google maps satellite view couldn't exist.
question: can a spy telescope, when it comes to apertures, lenses, focal point and scale, but most importantly perhaps, intent, be considered a microscope depending on which way its pointing? it seems to me that given the size of earth, the size of humans in realtion to that, how is it any different than monitoring a bacterial colony Wirth a microscope? functionally. its not different, right? or perhaps its more nuanced than functionally, but surely its closer to being a microscope, than a "telescope"?
street maps could definitely still exist. I saw a project here on hn that showed a land surveying satellite that was able to track land parcels and shade them accordingly using AI. and, if they can blur faces out I know they can blur rooftops and naked bums.
That a law against such a practice does or does not exist today is rather besides the point.
