The whole piece uses terms with negative connotations to convey what I think is meant to be a positive message of being impressed by ingenuity. So, I'm not sure which is the more charitable interpretation: he was extremely careless in writing the post, or was deliberately misleading to get views.
That's not to suggest that it's a good analogy, because it's also a totally improper use of that idiom.
A sheep follows the herd, but the wolf drives itself. Pretty good analogy if you ask me.
I doubt that the author is using 'sheep' and 'wolf' to refer to the herd behaviour of the former versus the self decision making ability/nature of the latter.
I cannot give a very well analyzed comment on the seriousness or the _wolfiness_ of this initiative by Google, I haven't given it a deep thought yet. I am, however, unable to understand the arguments of why what Google is doing, is bad. The author elaborates the possibility of Street View feeding Driverless Project and the latter increasing efficiency of the system. The reasoning behind this being vicious is missing.
"A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is an idiom of Biblical origin. It is used of those playing a role contrary to their real character, with whom contact is dangerous." - Wikipedia. Role contrary to real character, possibly. Dangerous, I can't see how.