Adriel Domfeh
11/18/22

Google street view has been used in this generation for a lot of good purposes, but did
you know there were many incidences where it disrupted the privacy of many individuals? In the
article “ The Googlization of Everything, a good example of how Google Street View was used
for good is when David de la Pefla used Street view daily as a tool for community design and
streetscape projects. This made it easier for him to get detailed photographs of a site. However,
one of many incidents that occurred where google street view disrupted the privacy of an
individual, is the incident that occurred with Aron and Christine. The couples living in Pittsburg
Pennsylvania were concerned that street view captured clear images of their driveway and house.
the couple acted and sued Google wanting $25,ooo in damages and claiming Google had
trespassed on their property through the power of its lenses. The judge in the case dismissed their
claims because the couple had not taken the simple step of requesting that Google remove the
offending images. The judge dismissed their claim because they could have acted in a low-cost
way to alleviate the conflict. However, that decision did not consider of how long the images had
been public or how many people might have seen them. In this case analysis, I will argue that the
consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that Google was in the wrong and they should
have fixed the concern about Google Street view invading people’s privacy.
The main concept that Floridi is trying to get readers to understand is that there are
privacies as freedom forms. He distinguishes four kinds of privacy that can all be formulated in
terms of ‘freedoms from’. First, there is Alice’s physical privacy. This is her freedom from
unwanted physical interaction or invasion of her personal space. Second, there is Alice’s mental
privacy. This refers to her freedom from unwanted psychological intrusion, which has been
achieved thanks to a restriction on others’ ability to access and manipulate her mental life. Third,
there is Alice’s decisional privacy. This is her freedom to make her own decisions and not go by
the decisions of others especially those concerning education, health care, career, work,
marriage, and faith. And finally, there is Alice’s informational privacy. This is her freedom from
informational interference or intrusion, achieved thanks to a restriction on information about her.
Using this concept to analyze the case it is seen that out of the four kinds of privacy,
Informational privacy was the main thing that was intruded. Although Google Street View is
used for good purposes it invaded the informational privacy of many individuals by exposing
people’s identity and their living environment. Aron and Christine, the couples living in
Pittsburg Pennsylvania were concerned that street view captured clear images of their driveway
and house. Many felt that the service was too invasive for comfort, yet Google Street view did
not seem to do much about it. The consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that
Google was in the wrong. The consequence of Google allowing people’s property to be seen
online resulted in many individuals feeling as if they were exposed. According to
consequentialism because the consequence of googles actions were bad google was in the wrong.
Google should have done a better Job of listening to how people felt about Google Street view
invading their privacy. The right thing to do would have been for Google Street view to fix the
exposure of private information within their system and inform people of the way that google
street view was being used.
In James Grimmelmann’s story “Privacy as Product Safety”, the fact that so much
personal information is available on Facebook, people could argue that it is against legal
intervention.
The main concept that Grimmelmann wants readers to understand is that Facebook users
care about privacy. The similarity between this concept and the case is that there is both an
invasion of privacy. Facebook users do not want their personal information to be seen by the
public in the same way that people do not want Google Street View to display their personal
information to the public. The article mentions three things someone could say about privacy in
social software that is false. Andrea was used as a representative example. People could say
Andrea does not care about privacy, Andrea makes rational privacy choices, and Andrea’s desire
for privacy is unrealistic. However, all three of these claims are false. They are myths about
privacy. Users of Facebook care about privacy, but they have great trouble achieving it. They
have no control over obtaining the privacy that they want. Privacy arises out of the quite natural
difficulty they have in understanding what will happen to their personal information once they
post it. Using the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning to assess the actions taken in the case
we can see that the consequence of Facebook not focusing heavily on privacy is not good. The
right thing to do would be for Facebook to resolve their user’s concerns about privacy and create
privacy laws for the app. The consequence of this action will be good making the decision good
as well. This gives users more security and prevents Facebook from being misused. Facebook
should take reasonable steps to secure its site from hackers. But the social nature of this social
software means that database regulation alone is insufficient and can be counterproductive if not
regulated correctly. With proper regulation, it could work.
In conclusion, the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that Google was in
the wrong and they should have fixed the concern about Google Street view invading people’s
privacy. Looking at the main concept from Florida. He distinguishes four kinds of privacy that
can all be formulated in terms of ‘freedoms from. Out of the four kinds of privacy, Informational
privacy was the main thing that was intruded. Although Google Street View is used for good
purposes it invaded the informational privacy of many individuals by exposing people’s identity
and their living environment. The consequentialist tool for moral reasoning shows us that Google
was in the wrong. Aron and Christine, the couples living in Pittsburg Pennsylvania were
concerned that street view captured clear images of their driveway and house. These couples
lacked security because their privacy was being disrupted. Many felt that the service was too
invasive for comfort, yet Google Street view did not seem to do much about it. According to the
consequentialist tool for moral reasoning the right thing to do would have been for Google Street
view to fix the lack of privacy within their system and inform people of the way that google
street view was being used. The main concept that Grimmelman wanted readers to understand is
that Facebook users care about privacy. The similarity between this concept and the case is that
there is both an invasion of privacy. Facebook users do not want their personal information to be
seen by the public in the same way that people do not want Google Street view to display their
personal information to the public. Users of Facebook care about privacy, but they have great
trouble achieving it. They have no control over obtaining the privacy that they want. Using the
consequentialist tool for moral reasoning we can see that this is wrong because the consequence
is not good. The right thing to do would be to understand Facebook user’s concerns revolving
around privacy and create privacy laws for the app. This gives users more security and would
prevent Facebook from being misused. Overall, the consequentialist tool for moral reasoning as
well as the concepts from Floridi and Grimmelmann allows readers to see how google could
have done a better job of fixing the privacy issues within Google Street view which would have led to a good consequence.