The article really falls down at the end where the conclusion is basically, "I don't care about people's privacy concerns and discomfort because I like street photography and enjoy making it." With a hint of, "and other people like to look at it, too. (Ignoring the uncomfortable people who would immediately refuse to have their photograph displayed, if asked)". So the author is basically arguing that they know better than their subjects and think their favorite hobby is good for society. That's not a very convincing justification.
As others have mentioned, being surveilled for specific purposes which we can generally assume will be viewed by one or zero people is different than being frozen in time for many people to dissect and judge.
The success of Xbox resulted from what was essentially an internal con job. It survived to launch and succeeded because the team responsible managed to keep a straight face about several important lies about what Xbox would be to the rest of the company's leadership and BG himself.
After reading more of "Harvard astronomer"'s comments, I think "paid us a visit" is a bit pointed and unfair.
Considering the unknown odds and likelihood of life/ intelligent life in the universe, ranging from nil to high, it isn't unreasonable to propose that exceptionally unusual space junk is just that - flotsam or jetsam from others. We're certainly on track to be discarding large amounts of our own across the universe. Compare to the amount of plastic in the ocean - it has to go somewhere.
Even if it acted under its own power, that doesn't mean that "it came here to spy on us", or that it noticed us at all. Even speculating on the purpose and function goes beyond reasonable, and Loeb doesn't.
The article really falls down at the end where the conclusion is basically, "I don't care about people's privacy concerns and discomfort because I like street photography and enjoy making it." With a hint of, "and other people like to look at it, too. (Ignoring the uncomfortable people who would immediately refuse to have their photograph displayed, if asked)". So the author is basically arguing that they know better than their subjects and think their favorite hobby is good for society. That's not a very convincing justification.
As others have mentioned, being surveilled for specific purposes which we can generally assume will be viewed by one or zero people is different than being frozen in time for many people to dissect and judge.