Introduction<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By now everyone knows that google, specifically google maps, has a street view feature
for many areas in the world including the United States and many parts of countries like the
United Kingdom, France, Italy, and even Japan. Unfortunately, there are many places where
people are against the fact that google takes pictures of them and their houses. They want google
to stop \u2018invading their privacy and embarrassing them\u2019. Some countries actually have laws that
pretty much prevent google from recording or posting anything without the permission of
whoever owns the products. In the article \u201cThe Googlization of Everything (And Why We
Should Worry)\u201d by Siva Vaidhyanathan, it is mentioned that many people use the google street
view for work or even personal reasons and are very grateful for it. However, in the same article
there are people who are more afraid of their information being exposed to the street view
(Vaidhyanathan 2011). In this case analysis I will argue that utilitarianism shows us that Google
should stop using google street view in all areas of the world where people do not want it and
can only use places that are public or that they have permission from the owners.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ARGUMENTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the beginning of the article, Vaidhyanathan states that responders to a questionnaire
about the google street view, claim that they actually find it very useful. David, an architect, said
he uses it to view potential project designs. It also lets the people he is building for, be able to
view the neighborhoods they will be building in as well. Cory, an author, said he uses the google
street view to remember what a specific area looked like so he could describe it properly in one
of the books he writes (Vaidhyanathan 2011). In the article about privacy written by Floridi, he
mentions that ownership based interpretation of privacy is a reason for why people believe they
should receive privacy, because the product is theirs and if they didn\u2019t agree for it to be public
then it shouldn\u2019t be (2016). On most ends of the argument, I agree with that.
According to utilitarianism, the correct choice to make would be the one that has a
consequence that impartially helps the most people whether by minimizing something that was
wrong or bad or by bringing the most happiness. Some countries do not allow Google to initiate
the street view. According to the Googlization of Everything article, google also tends to take
down anything that customers deem as inappropriate, invasion of privacy, or just embarrassing
as long as they are contacted about it. So, as long as people communicate what they want, people
can still use it for work and the people who want their information off of it can have that as well
(Vaidhyanathan 2011). So for some the consequence would be getting rid of something they
don\u2019t like and for others it would be keeping things they do like so its a win-win on both sides
that way. In addition to that, in the Floridi article it is mentioned that there are issues with the
ownership argument over getting privacy. So, the outcome are reasons why getting rid of google
street view completely doesn\u2019t make sense.
If you are getting a picture taken and you give permission to whoever is taking it to keep
it then what happens down the line when you change your mind and want the picture back?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another issue is if you do private activity in a public or open area. There are cameras and people
all around and if you happen to get caught on a camera it is perfectly legal because you
knowingly did it in an open, public area. Floridi also mentioned in the article that the view of
how important privacy is, is also changing with it being more severe to steal information and is
now seen as serious as kidnapping. Essentially, the freedom you get with the expectation of
privacy is dependent on the circumstances you are in. This highlights what Floridi mentioned in
their writing about the issues with privacy today in a more digital age, including ownership and
privacy in public, open areas. This is because with the increasing use of information and
communication technology (ICT\u2019s) the standard expectation for privacy has been shifting and
Floridi points that out in their writing and that is why I think Google should cater to both getting
rid of things some don\u2019t like while keeping features others do like (Floridi 2016).
One comment that was made against the street view in Vaidhyanathan\u2019s article, was that
a couple had some images of their properties placed on google street view and they decided to
sue google for damages. The case ended up being dismissed because they never even asked
google if they could take it down in the first place. In this case they did end up clearing the data
from street view once the case was brought to their attention. So, they\u2019ve pretty much already
been practicing listening to what the people want. As well as blurring any faces and license plate
information which is also listed in that article (Vaidhyanathan 2011). What sense would it make
in the long run to get rid of the street view if the privacy of the people is now so important?
Especially with google willing to remove anything at the owners behest. It makes more sense to
keep it for the people who lawfully use it and get rid of the information others would like
removed. In that case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the article \u201cPrivacy as Product Safety\u201d by James Grimmelmann, specifically on page
813, he talks about how companies can make their products better and safer for their customers.
Which can line up with google, editing their software to provide more privacy for the customers
and their product they are capturing in their street view. He mostly mentions Facebook stating
that while the use of Facebook can cause trouble the overall benefits of using the site outweigh
the risks or potential damage it can cause. So, it is suggested that editing the site to better prevent
privacy leaks or just making it able to be more private in general, would greatly help the use of
Facebook overall and make it safer for the users (Grimmelmann 2010).
Grimmelmann also states in his article that sellers or producers of the products, should be
held liable for any issues with the products. This includes that the company cannot use
disclaimers about unsafe features of the product to exempt themselves from being held liable for
the outcomes of the product. Any defects or issues with the product and whatever happens
because of those issues, should also be under the responsibility of the company or seller. So, if
privacy happens to be broken somehow then the company, Facebook or Google, would be held
liable for it and whatever negative consequences follow those defects (Grimmelmann 2010).
Using the utilitarian tool to support my argument, Google should be held responsible for
any issues that the customers bring up with their product. This is because according to the
utilitarian view, Google would want the consequences of whatever decision they make to please
the most people and taking responsibility for issues would overall please the people, just for
owning up to it and hopefully fixing it. Especially since that would mean that the customers they
are trying to please, are not all happy with the product they created. I think that Grimmelmann
properly explained that the companies can admit fault and adjust to their customers’ wishes.
Satisfying the customers would also lead toward the greatest benefits about the product, specifically google street view. Whether they are for it or against it, bettering privacy and safety
helps everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to my understanding of utilitarianism, the point of view or decision where the
consequences end up with more happiness overall or minimizes something bad. Even if it doesn’t
make everyone happy. In this case some people will be mad that google street view is not
included everywhere and others will be mad that it still exists in the first place. Because of
everything mentioned in this essay, I believe that Google should get rid of street view in any
place that does not want it because it gets rid of the risks of privacy associated with it. However,
instead of getting rid of it all together, keep it in places that give permission to have it. Even if
they have to go from house to house.
I realize that some people like mentioned earlier use it for work purposes and it helps
them out a lot however, in accordance with making the most people satisfied and better off, I still
believe it would be more useful to get rid of everything that is complained about (mainly
property that the owners want off of it) but still have ones that people don\u2019t mind and public
areas open and available for the people who use it professionally or personally. This way most
people will be happy about it. But realistically someone will always complain about something
so this is the best method<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WORK CITED
Floridi, Luciano. \u201cChapter 5: Informational Friction.\u201d The Fourth Revolution, 2016, pp. 101\u2013
128.
Grimmelmann, James. \u201cPrivacy as Product Safety.\u201d James Grimmelmann Net, 2010,
james.grimmelmann.net\/files\/articles\/privacy-as-product-safety.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry).
University of California Press, 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction By now everyone knows that google, specifically google maps, has a street view featurefor many areas in the world including the United States and many parts of countries like theUnited Kingdom, France, Italy, and even Japan. Unfortunately, there are many places wherepeople are against the fact that google takes pictures of them and their… <\/p>\n