Yes, good point. A passerby is passing by, not standing there 24 hours a day for 10 weeks staring in a particular direction. So they are not really the same thing.
The passerby could attempt to stand there 24 hours a day for 10 weeks looking in the same direction but I expect that at some point during that time period the they would harassed by local law enforcement concerning the nature and purpose of their "loitering".
I've got the rough equivalent: a couple nosy retired neighbors, who email the neighborhood mailing list every time they see a truck roll down the street they don't recognize. They don't get harassed by law enforcement, in fact, they're on great terms.
The increasing omniscience of your neighbors brings society back from a relatively short period of anonymity. In a small town, a single officer off the main road knew everyone's comings and goings. This did lead to a lot of abuse, and I'm glad that we're beyond the worst of sheriff as bully. But the answer to increasing observational powers isn't going to be in forcing law enforcement to be crippled, it's going to be in better open access and transparency on what and who they are targeting.
I agree to a certain degree, but if I understand this particular case correctly, isn't one of the conflicts in this case the difference between general surveillance vs. targeted surveillance?
It's one thing to say that "everyone" is under observation when a 360-degree camera is posted on a pole in the middle of town, but another when a single lens camera is posted on the same pole but only pointed at your bedroom window. Now, whether they are legally different is not something that I'm qualified to address, but personally I see a wide difference between the two.