It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.
Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street is one thing. Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street, with a focus on you, because you are doing something that looks inappropriate, out of context, is another. Someone following you around, taking video, from the moment you step out of your front door, to the moment that you step back through it is a third.
That someone can be a stranger who doesn't know or care that you exist, a private individual with a deranged vendetta against you, who has threatened you with harm[1], a company that does this on a massive scale and aggregates data, a company that does this on a targeted, personal scale, a government agency that is lawfully investigating a crime, a government agency that is unlawfully acting out of vindictiveness, a government agency that is lawfully acting out of vindictiveness...
None of these things are the same, nor do they warrant the same "Oh, well, it's a public space, nobody owns it, everyone can do whatever they want."
It's a public space. We all own it. We all get to determine what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and unacceptable in it.
The solution to predators and bad actors in a public space is not expecting that everyone who can afford it move more of their life into a private one. That's how we lose our public spaces.
[1] Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not have any particular recourse against that. Some locales really don't like handing out restraining orders... Or enforcing them, when they are broken.
* What about looking at people with one's own eyes, without the express consent of other people?
* What about people with photographic memory, who are effectively walking cameras?
* What about artists who draw pictures of people they see in public?
Where does this nonsense ever end? While the question is hyperbolic, and I apologize, that's intentional use of the "Reducto absurdum" fallacy to help illustrate the absurdity of this kind of idea.
You can photograph people in public all you want, but you cannot publish those without their permission.
Blurring or the people not being in focus/center can allow you to do so without getting everyone's permission though (think of crowds, passersby in the background).
I wonder if someone could argue that using their photo as training data could make the model itself a derivative work? iirc those require royalty/license too.
Why would anybody have an expectation of privacy from aerial vehicles far above?