Some countries stipulate that it is illegal to publish someone’s photograph without their consent. Sometimes there is a distinction between personal and commercial use, but usually commercial use is the more strict, and Google’s use would definitely count as commercial.

I found a site which seems to have the corresponding law for Argentina: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/justicia/derechofacil/leysimple/propiedad-intelectual

Art. 31. - El retrato fotográfico de una persona no puede ser puesto en el comercio sin el consentimiento expreso de la persona misma, y muerta ésta, de su cónyuge e hijos o descendientes directos de éstos, o en su defecto del padre o la madre. Faltando el cónyuge, los hijos, el padre o la madre, o los descendientes directos de los hijos, la publicación es libre.

La persona que haya dado su consentimiento puede revocarlo reduciendo daños y perjuicios.

Es libre la publicación del retrato cuando se relacione con fines científicos, didácticos y en general culturales, o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que hubieran desarrollado en público.

DeepL translation below:

Art. 31. - The photographic portrait of a person may not be placed in commerce without the express consent of the person himself, and when the latter is dead, of his spouse and children or their direct descendants, or in their absence, of the father or mother. In the absence of the spouse, the children, the father or mother, or the direct descendants of the children, the publication is free.

The person who has given his consent may revoke it by reducing damages.

The publication of the portrait is free when it is related to scientific, didactic and in general cultural purposes, or to facts or events of public interest or that have been developed in public.

I didn’t get into the details too much once I saw that it was completely irrelevant to their point.

If I had to guess, it would be because Google Maps gets a lot more views than the man typically recieves while walking naked in public.