It is important to understand that the data protection guy does not oppose to street view in general, but rather criticizes the fact that people's faces are visible. This is a considerable difference, since 1.) it is your person that can be recorded, rather than your property, and 2.) it is quite impractical to check every place you have been the last couple of months in order to check whether there is a picture of you which remained unblurred.
It may be of interest that there was considerable public debate in Switzerland over the last few weeks to what extent surveillance cameras of public ground are allowed, so this is by no means a singling out of Google. And even if it were, it is probably fair to say that Street view is something quite unique, and thus this case might not be covered appropriately by current laws (and to point out such things to the lawmakers is exactly the job of this guy). For instance, while I don't consider depicting a house from a street offensive, it might be a different story if the pictures are from 2.5 meters above ground, reaching angles your typical tourist won't get to.
Furthermore, while you might feel protected from some terrorists or whatever when constantly watched, please register that there are countries where the opinion on this differs, where laws are different and where personal freedom and privacy are valued higher than you might be used to. Swiss law makes a distinction between people of "public interest" (which you may hunt as many paparazzi onto as you'd like), and common people, where laws are much more restrictive.
