IMAGINE a life without Google – if you can. For me, the website is part of my everyday life. It is my first port of call with any unanswered questions and the go to site for directions.

So my initial reaction to the news this week that the internet giant is sending out planes capable of capturing images through skylights and windows was probably not the same as most.

It was not one of disgust or annoyance.

I did not begin to plan a trip to buy blackouts for my windows or brandish a copy of George Orwell’s 1984 in the faces of my colleagues.

As a huge fan of Google and its map service, I am looking forward to the chance to check out more detailed street views and overhead shots of cities I have yet to visit.

Even more excitingly it seems the business will now be taking cameras on foot to document the previously unseen.

A backpack camera will visit places many can only dream of.

These trips will allow these dreams a sense of reality as they bring alive the depths of the rainforests to the great heights of Mount Everest.

But despite the news being relatively unsurprising – of course they want to update what must be a well-used site – the backlash is understandable as undoubtedly there are those who regard the technology as a ‘spy in the sky’ and a breach of privacy.

It is true the new aerial maps will show objects only four inches wide.

The cameras will be so powerful they could potentially see in through the windows of homes and are thought to be similar to those used by intelligence agencies for work in Afghanistan.

This may concern a great many but I ask myself why?

Is it because they are against the principle of people being able to look at their house or car?

Or perhaps they are concerned about being snapped doing something they would rather others not know about.

What of the man who was leaving a sex shop, or the one shown being sick in the street?

You and I don’t need to wonder why they are against Google’s maps.

But I suspect many simply want to maintain a level of privacy in their homes, and who can argue with that?