Is Street View the worst damaged archive of our epoch?

I'm sorry if I have chosen false forum for this question (if so, please tell me and I'll have to search for some other forum) but...

As many users might know, Google Street View uses some technology for automated blurring of faces and license plates.
But this technology incorrectly recognizes many (even very many) things as faces and license plates.
And some media tell us that the high-quality version is lost forever in replace with images ridden with blotchy spots.

And no one seems to be disturbed by such allegedly existing damage of the best witness of our epoch.
Even if our todays laws require so - I think we shouldn't accept it. We should organize protests. But not me alone - I don't think that my protests make any sense if I don't manage to find any supporter.

At last it's possible to copy pictures without aging but our todays laws are said to disallow this huge advantage of our technology. It's really sad.

You are quite correct in your assumption that the Google Earth Community is not really the appropriate place for these protests.  Our only association with Google is that we like to make use of Google Earth in our efforts, consequently we have zero influence. This would be best posted on the Google Maps and Earth Help Forum. That is an official Google forum. However, make sure your post is a request or suggestion for a feature change.  Almost all the people manning the Google Help forum are NOT Google Employees. They are just regular users with a lot of experience helping other with Google Applications and some limited access to Google Employees.

G'day outerspaceserver.
I too remember the days when GE wasn't blurred but I wouldn't call it crisp and clear though.
Now even faces on billboards and statues are blurred alongside anything that remotely looks like a face.
Ive even seen animal faces blurred.
But with technology comes privacy issues and I would bet my last dollar that there are lots more people in the world worried about loosing their privacy than there are GE users that want unblurred images.
It is written somewhere in some constitutions that the "individuals right to privacy" can not be threatened as a basic human right and that's just unfortunate for those that want clear GE images.
Scott Cleland runs a blog called Precursor.Blog that keeps close tabs on privacy issues in general and is especially interested in Google and Google products and gives us huge amounts of reasons why we should be worried about issues surrounding our privacy or in a lot of cases, the lack of it.
But here I am talking about privacy when today I had to give out and sign away my private details to a phone company and two doctors.
Many times we are asked to give our details to people we don't know in the name of running business with them and in the hope that those details will be safe with them in their "safe" databases and that they will not onsell the information to businesses who would like to sell you things and would know you might be looking for something like their product.
This freely giving of information I find is also breeding a general public that is getting lax in their own knowledge of their rights and easily succumb to scammer's that ask for sensitive information to gain financial advantage which again, due to technological advances has become more prevalent.
Some companies and individuals will push the limits, sometimes bend the rules and often cross the line but due to privacy rules that they also have, the general public may never know what they have done or are doing which may be against our basic human right to privacy.
Try ringing up your local spy agency and ask them what they are doing or try to ask for a look at the records they are keeping on you. Good luck with that.
And if you want to keep pictures and images be careful to update and copy them often onto media that can be read from our future machines.
Try finding an old five and one quarter floppy disc drive in working order so you can transfer them to your new hard drive.
So what was the question outerspaceserver?
I don't think there was one.
Never mind. Have a great day.
 
And what Barnstormer said. Yep.

I think that these blurrings are OK but only as long as nothing irreversible happens. As long as the original pictures are kept for historical reasons I don't mind blurring of Street View.
Imagine, the original pictures are backed-up to outer space server (like my nickname). Then these pictures have bigger chances to survive anti-archival laws of any country on Earth.
If EU blurs everything but the blurring is undone if the public opinion changes from "Street View stalks us" to "please, give us historical document back! We were so stupid with destruction of our public space! This city was demolished and the best historical record is gone! We want to undo this!". 

So my opinion is clear: yes to blurring if the society prefers this way, no to irreversible blurring.

No matter how good thing is protection of privacy I don't think it's OK to have unlimited private sphere. Why? Because someone could set radius of his private sphere as big as 12756 km, making entire planet useless for anyone else. Imagine you aren't allowed to take pictures anywhere on Earth because I could in theory appear everywhere and I claim the entire Earth as place where you shouldn't accidentally find me. Would you like to accept such conditions?

A translation of some discussion of this issue in German.

It's always so that only few pictures survive the years and if these pictures are dug up someday then the pictures are worthless just because it's heavily edited.
Now we have really a technical possibility to create such great historic document but our todays laws don't allow us to preserve it as really historical pictures. It's really sad.

Unfortunately, the visualizations of the right to seize entire public space look so bad that it's just unfortunate that it's so beloved "human right". Legal system was originally meant as something which could prevent irreversible destructive processes which we would regret, not as something that causes irreversible disappointing processes.

So looks normal use of legal system:
You have intention to do something bad and irreversible. It will be sad if done. The law doesn't allow you to do this "bad and irreversible" thing. The law is a reason why some irreversible damage doesn't happen. It's much better than the case of Google Street View.

It looks like I have exhausted all sites in three languages about this issue - English, German, Russian. Including official Google Maps forums. And I found almost nothing.
What about users with 30 inch 2560x1600 IPS monitors? They almost can't visit any single spot in Google Street View without cursing flaws.
Imaginary undamaged Street View would have historical value even right now. It is old enough to have historical value.

What I absolutely can't understand is why the people are fearing lack of privacy but the opposite issue - lack of public space (which is in my opinion a need as well) - doesn't bother anyone.