Thanks for the added detail. With the specific prohibitions on photographs of residences that include people, this does seem like it might have grown out of privacy issues rather than from the secrecy and paranoia that produces doctored or inaccurate images of government buildings in online maps. I'd argue that the prohibition should specifically cover only people inside the residential structure, and have some concept of scale (so that a photo at a scale that has people as unidentifiable single pixels doesn't count), but the concept doesn't seem excessively unreasonable in the same spirit as "don't take pictures through people's windows".
> With the specific prohibitions on photographs of residences that include people
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The language of the bill specifically excludes from prohibition images not containing "forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects" (emphasis mine) - yet the
writer of the article came to the same conclusion you have:
..."possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable."
