Neither for nor against
I'm neither *for* the Borings in this case, but I'm not exactly *for* Google here either, despite being a geek who loves Street View.
I don't like the attitude that is presented; the implication by Google that trespass onto private land is okay so long as it's really easy to do and there are no physical barriers stopping us.
Also, on the fact that it's private land and there's a sign which says so; "Plaintiff's allegation of a 'private road' sign at the top of their street standing alone is insufficient to negate Google's privileged and trivial entry upon Plaintiff's property."
So they're also suggesting that Google is above having to read signs, and signs such as these do not apply to Google? Or perhaps the sign wasn't big enough, or there weren't enough of them? Maybe for Google to take note and heed any signs they need to be in big neon lights? I wonder if the Street View cars have to pay attention to speed limit signs.
I'm normally a big Google fan, and as I say whilst I don't agree with the Boring's whinings here, I don't agree with the tact which Google is using to win this case.
Just make some apologies, delete their pictures, and go on your way.